New Game Hype


The E3 just passed has been an extreme let-down. Virtually every single developer and studio has been ‘playing it safe’ this year, with ‘shooters’ (as they seem to be called now, their old short-hand name ‘first-person shooter’ now becoming something of a technical term – the word ‘shooter’ does nothing to distinguish an FPS from a rail-shooter, third-person shooter &c) dominating the raw number of game releases/development being performed. This is the first sign/indication that ‘something is wrong with video games today’.

The second indication is similar to the first. That indication is that many of the games yet to be released are poor sequels. Further to this, many popular games that’ve been released in the medium-term past (2005-present) have been poor sequels to games, or unimaginative implementations of the formula of a particular game genre.

The reason why games have become unimaginative and poorly executed can only be speculated. It is, perhaps, chiefly because game developers have decided that the best way to make games is to make money, and that the best way to make money is to make games that focus on special effects and spectacle. The most recent ‘anecdotal proof’ of this is the developers of the up-coming Splinter Cell game stating that the newest iteration of the ‘series’ (iterations of games that are effectively the same do not become ‘series’ of games) doesn’t actually differ in gameplay, it’s just a better-looking implementation of the exact same game concepts.

The Halo ‘series’ should have stopped at the first game. The Call of Duty franchise must also stop attempting to represent that each new game they release is actually a ‘new game’. Killzone is another set of games guilty of the same wrong. Borderlands 2 may also prove to be similar.

First-person shooters are just the most common games to repeat the same formula of game concepts over and over. Nintendo has just been re-releasing the same games they made ten, fifteen years ago. Releasing Ocarina of Time on the 3DS should not have been done. Neither should Lylat Wars/Starfox64 have been re-released. Super Mario Galaxy 1 and 2 were brilliant games, but every side-scrolling Mario game on the Wii was just a repetition of something already achieved. Many games on the Wii have been passed of as actual ‘new’ games when they were not.

To avoid passing judgment on every game released in the last five or so years (I can’t help myself: Skyrim was just a copy of Oblivion), a really retardedly simple conceptual framework will now be offered up in an attempt to give some sort of guide/direction as to what does and what does not make a good sequel to a game. This conceptual framework will be a good framework if it successfully helps people achieve deeply satisfying entertainment experiences when playing a game sequel.

The two conditions that must be satisfied to make a good sequel to a game are:

  1. Original concepts
  2. Good execution

“Original concepts”

Original does not mean unique. Original is also not equal to ‘simple’. The word ‘authentic’ could just as easily have been used here but it doesn’t capture the essence of the importance of the concepts in games, and, arguably, really begs the question. Whether an original concept is any good is also not of any concern here because we are only interested in sequels, and so a game must merely have different concepts in order to exist as a separate game. A concept is what drives a game, and it is what causes it to exist in the first place.

A game concept is not running, jumping and shooting, it is what creates a kind of ‘potential energy’ in a game. This ‘potential’ exists for the purpose of presenting the player with a challenge to ‘satisfy’ or ‘annul’ that potential energy. Examples of the major concepts in games are:

These examples are hideously simple, and a game like Thief or Assassin’s Creed fits into both half the FPS-genre and half of the RPG-genre. Borderlands fits into the same two genres but for incredibly different reasons.

Game concepts that are not original make two pieces of software that are games exactly the same. Counter-strike 1.6 is exactly the same as Counter-Strike: Source. Some people argue that the controls were changed to such an extent that the game was radically changed but this is a poor argument to answer the charge that CS:S was a game in terms of concepts any different to 1.6.

Graphics and special effects do absolutely nothing to the ‘core concepts’ of a game. There have been calls to re-release Final Fantasy VII with better graphics. This is a poor wish, such a thing will only reward someone with, conceptually, the same game. This should be repeated to people who profess their eager anticipation for ‘the next Smash Brothers’.

“Good execution”

Execution is the way video game concepts are implemented. Poorly executed games mutate good concepts into poor game-play. Because the two conditions prescribed here are independent, it is of course possible to have a game with incredibly well-executed game concepts that are unoriginal, or just lacking in any virtue to begin with.

This element here is the only justification anyone can point to to legitimise the existence of sequels to games. The sequel to a game must somehow substantially better execute the same concepts than the one(s) preceding it, if it does not employ (substantially) any other different concepts.

Special effects and ‘magic buttons’ (now becoming more prevalent than ever in games, rendering them into marginally interactive movies) usually have nothing to do with the concepts of a game, and just render particular events in the game more spectacular than what they would have been, given that the hardware on a game’s platform had been less powerful.

Good execution of a game’s concepts usually have nothing to do with a game’s graphics. Perfect example of this would be: FFXIII, Crash Bandicoot (any of them), Age of Empires III, Civ V.

Conclusion: “Ranking” games

Games and their sequels tend to be ranked in popular culture. Sometimes, a sequel to a game is better than the original. Broadly, a good example of this is Pokemon Gold and Silver. Crystal is debatable (- the battle tower). Games cannot, of course, be ‘ranked’ (load the page, then refresh it a couple of times). There does not exist some essence which resides in all games that makes them commensurable with one another, but for the purpose of illustrating the difference between game _execution_ and game conceptualisation with respect to game sequels, see this livejournal post.